Green Bay Packers Thread

spank_inferno · 10-11-2011 1:11pm

Cool!

I know its technically money down the drain and the frame will be worth a lot more, but I'd still buy a share.

It will be a tough "Turkey Bowl" this year.

Last time I was in Milwaukee for Thanksgiving I remember Mr D. Driver getting a little turkey trophy for being man of the match.
He seemed quite pleased!

11-11-2011 12:37pm

BillN wrote: »

Just a question: Do you all get together with other Packer fans in your area to watch the game?

Might be the only Packer fan in Kerry myself!

Presume there are others, but locating them isn't easy.

Watch the odd game with other football fans in the pub, but prefer to watch Packer games at home.

WakeyTyke · 11-11-2011 8:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Might be the only Packer fan in Kerry myself!

Presume there are others, but locating them isn't easy.

Watch the odd game with other football fans in the pub, but prefer to watch Packer games at home.

Well I'm in Clare, so there are 2 Packers fans in the west

cooker3 · 13-11-2011 4:23pm

Btw, all packers fans should check out the podcast Aaron Rodgers does with ESPN every week. Just look up Aaron Rodgers or Tuesdays with Aaron and you should find it.
He talks about plays each week in a lot of detail and generally just comes across as an all round humble decent guy.

spank_inferno · 16-11-2011 10:05am

I watched the condensed ESPN coverage last night of the Vikings game.

I'm far from an expert, but I wonder whats the deal with the offensive line, ie: the 5 fat guys blocking the vikings trying to get to Rogers.
They seemed to collapse all to easily, when they were strong and rogers had a good pocket to work from we were imperious.
However they let too many tackles through, especially from the Vikings line-backer (with the handlebar moustache).

Will this be a worry when it comes to play-offs?

Chicago, 49rs & Giants could cause issues there.

Arawn · 16-11-2011 12:39pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

I watched the condensed ESPN coverage last night of the Vikings game.

I'm far from an expert, but I wonder whats the deal with the offensive line, ie: the 5 fat guys blocking the vikings trying to get to Rogers.
They seemed to collapse all to easily, when they were strong and rogers had a good pocket to work from we were imperious.
However they let too many tackles through, especially from the Vikings line-backer (with the handlebar moustache).

Will this be a worry when it comes to play-offs?

Chicago, 49rs & Giants could cause issues there.

Jarred Allen?? Sacked Rogers twice and caused a sack another time, that was pretty much all they did all game apart from when rogers went to scramble instead of going for the short gain, prob got to him 6 times total in game, 3 times for the loss and we only punted 1-2 times, pretty strong showing from the D, was a step up from what they've been at lately.

I reckon only a team with an elite Qb and an elite RB will touch us

Peyton Manning · 17-11-2011 10:30pm

Johnny Jolly has been sentenced to 6 years in jail. Pretty ridiculous sentence tbh.

cooker3 · 18-11-2011 8:40am

Cam Newton wrote: »

Johnny Jolly has been sentenced to 6 years in jail. Pretty ridiculous sentence tbh.

Aaron Rodgers, on the podcast I mentioned above, was very critical of how the NFL handled his case banning him from all team facillities. He said if Jolly had been allowed he would have had a much better chance of recovery.

It's a big shame what's happened to him. He was a good player. I can sadly imagine reading about his tragic early death through suicide, overdose etc in the next 10 years. From what I gather football was his life. Without it he has a tough road ahead.

me-skywalker · 21-11-2011 12:27pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

I watched the condensed ESPN coverage last night of the Vikings game.

I'm far from an expert, but I wonder whats the deal with the offensive line, ie: the 5 fat guys blocking the vikings trying to get to Rogers.
They seemed to collapse all to easily, when they were strong and rogers had a good pocket to work from we were imperious.
However they let too many tackles through, especially from the Vikings line-backer (with the handlebar moustache).

Will this be a worry when it comes to play-offs?

Chicago, 49rs & Giants could cause issues there.

This is a stat I pulled before last nights game for the first 3 seasons.

Rodgers has thrown only 13, 7 and 11 int. Sacked 34, 51 and 38 times his first three seasons.

This shows that with his playing calling he is willing to be more patient, be more selective of when he throws. This increases the the seconds the OL have to hold off tackles, therefore increasing the percentages the tackler will get around them to pressure Rodgers. Its something the that he has to deal with and the Linemen have to deal with, its a catch 22; the more patient he is the more pressure he brings on himself.
I think him and Big Ben have similar attitude with the big plays, they are willing to take the hits, to make the big plays, they get straight back up, dust themselves off and these are the guys that are gonna make the big plays when it matters.

The pass to Jordy Nelson was a prime example of the above, Rodgers waited, he took his time, learned form the INT and let loose at a pivotal moment in the game to get more points on the board.

Also much kudos to Nelson this year has taken a huge amount of clutch passes. Never seems phased.

WakeyTyke · 21-11-2011 3:18pm

Listening to the disappointment and frustration from Rodgers after the Bucs game it could almost be chalked down as being as significant as a loss.

To expect the Pack to keep bringing out their A game, week after week, is unreasonable and a sub-standard performance was just waiting to happen. Perhaps fortuitously that dip in performance has come at Lambeau against a good but by no means great Bucs team.

McCarthy wont need to use this performance as a motivational tool, as the players know they dodged the bullet on this one and have to get straight back to their awesome best for the trip to the Lions on Thursday.

Bring it on:D

WakeyTyke · 28-11-2011 10:18pm

I see the Packer organisation are currently keeping a lid on the arrest of Eric Walden. It is expected that he will to make a court appearance today to be charged with the felony battery of his live-in girlfriend.

It is probable that the Packers will suspend him while this on-going and if he is found guilty no-doubt they will terminate his contract (strong similarities to the Brandon Underwood situation).

If it is correct, it a very sad situation - primarily for his victim, but also for him to throw away what was developing into a very productive and successful career as an OLB.:mad:

As for the Packers, hopefully:rolleyes:, Frank Zombo will be able to stay healthy and it may also create an opportunity for rookie Vic So'oto to shine

Pherekydes · 29-11-2011 9:25am

WakeyTyke wrote: »

I see the Packer organisation are currently keeping a lid on the arrest of Eric Walden. It is expected that he will to make a court appearance today to be charged with the felony battery of his live-in girlfriend.

It seems the girlfriend's story may be changing or have been misinterpreted:

Latest

Pherekydes · 01-12-2011 5:45pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

I see Aaron Rodgers has won his third straight "Offensive Player of the Month" award. If he keeps up this form through November he'll have the MVP won by a distance.

Rodgers duly wins his fourth straight NFC Offensive Player of the Month!

vinny chase · 01-12-2011 6:00pm

I'd say if Rodgers doesn't take another regular season snap he'll still be MVP by some distance.

02-12-2011 5:23am

Pherekydes wrote: »

It seems the girlfriend's story may be changing or have been misinterpreted:

Latest

Hmmmmmmm.

Rich sports star's gf changes story and claims she was at fault for the physical fight that ended up with her getting a head wound...

He is of course innocent until proven guilty... But have to admit I don't like the sound if that...

Arawn · 02-12-2011 5:46am

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmmmmmm.

Rich sports star's gf changes story and claims she was at fault for the physical fight that ended up with her getting a head wound...

He is of course innocent until proven guilty... But have to admit I don't like the sound if that...

tbh i hate the way it's assumed just cos he's big he started it. I know plenty of women that'll gladly hit much bigger guys because the guys won't hit back.

kmart6 · 02-12-2011 6:16am

All he may have done is put out a arm in defense and it knocked her over...he's a big guy like!

02-12-2011 8:13am

Oh true.

We don't know what happened. Yet.

And women can attack men.

But she ended up with stitches to her head. Whoever started it, that's not pleasant. Maybe someone could sit down with the powerful athlete and explain evasion techniques, like walking away. There are battered partners out there, surely it's rare enough that the victim leaves the assailant needing stitches though.

Arawn · 02-12-2011 8:27am

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh true.

We don't know what happened. Yet.

And women can attack men.

But she ended up with stitches to her head. Whoever started it, that's not pleasant. Maybe someone could sit down with the powerful athlete and explain evasion techniques, like walking away. There are battered partners out there, surely it's rare enough that the victim leaves the assailant needing stitches though.

She could of been hitting him away simple easy push to get her away, she trips hits head off something. Not as straight forward as you think.

I know a guy, got hit about 5 times in the face, hit back once, knocked yer man clean out, the attacker ended up in hospital for a few days.

Things aren't always black and white

02-12-2011 9:16am

Arawn wrote: »

She could of been hitting him away simple easy push to get her away, she trips hits head off something. Not as straight forward as you think.

I know a guy, got hit about 5 times in the face, hit back once, knocked yer man clean out, the attacker ended up in hospital for a few days.

Things aren't always black and white

True.

Or he could have punched her so hard that she needed stitches. You have to concede that in all of this that is at least possible.

All we know for a fact is that she ended up injured. Yes it might have been an unfortunate accident.

Pherekydes · 02-12-2011 10:40am

Deleted User wrote: »

True.

Or he could have punched her so hard that she needed stitches. You have to concede that in all of this that is at least possible.

All we know for a fact is that she ended up injured. Yes it might have been an unfortunate accident.

She was the aggressor. She hit him first. She never reported the incident. I'm presuming ER staff called the cops:

The latest.

Green Bay - Green Bay Packers linebacker Erik Walden apologized Tuesday afternoon for being a distraction to the team and said he hoped to get back to playing football soon.

A short time later, his attorney said that based on information he has gathered since Walden was arrested on suspicion of battery Friday morning, it's likely he won't be charged.

"From my investigation (he shouldn't be)," said attorney Steve Richards. "From what I know."

The Packers have not said whether they plan any disciplinary action for Walden after he was arrested on suspicion of felony substantial battery with a domestic violence enhancer. Walden was taken into custody after a dispute with his live-in girlfriend at their apartment in the Town of Lawrence left her with four stitches in her head from hitting a bedpost and an injured thumb.

The team's public relations staff made Walden available for a couple of questions inside the locker and the focus of his comments was an apology for taking attention away from the season.

"I want to apologize to the entire organization, my teammates and the fans," Walden said. "It's an ongoing process and I respect that process. It's just unfortunate that I brought something negative for so much positive that's going on with this organization. I'm cooperating fully."

On Monday, Brown County district attorney John P. Zakowski said Walden's girlfriend had changed the story she told police early Friday morning. She said she was the one who instigated the fight and that Walden was only defending himself after she hit him first.

Richards said his investigator had interviewed the woman three times and found that she never intended to file a police report. He said she did not change her story but went back over her statement and clarified some things.

Richards said the arresting officers were doing what they thought was right but that the story the woman gave to them might not have been recorded correctly.

"The officers may have thought initially that she was covering up for Erik," he said.

Richards said the woman insisted she was the aggressor and did not initiate the call to the police. He said he doesn't know who called them.

The Packers did not practice Tuesday, so it's unclear whether Walden is in the team's plans this week. His next court appearance is scheduled for Dec. 7 but would be canceled if Zakowski chose not to file charges.

Kylo Ren · 02-12-2011 10:44am

So how's that 11-0 treating you lads...

02-12-2011 11:24am

Pherekydes wrote: »

She was the aggressor. She hit him first.

He is the linebacker. She is not.

She may have hit him first but in an incident where the woman sustained a head injury and the man seems unscathed, not sure the word "aggressor" really sums up the mismatch.

Either way, clearly this is at an end. I hope they both get some counselling or intervention or she might end up accidently a lot worse off next time she starts attacking him.

spiralism · 02-12-2011 11:53am

off topic but came across this yesterday, one of the best highlight reels you are ever likely to see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TiTC5fGez0

Enjoy cheeseheads!:D

Pherekydes · 02-12-2011 12:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

He is the linebacker. She is not.

That's no excuse to start a fight. Or not to defend yourself.

me-skywalker · 02-12-2011 2:51pm

She hits him he pushes her away to (a) block her (b) defend himself (c) get her away from him. If he does what you purpose he would perfectly still, hands by his side and take it like a man, ya know, cause he's a linebacker.

Dohnny Jepp · 02-12-2011 3:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

He is the linebacker. She is not.

She may have hit him first but in an incident where the woman sustained a head injury and the man seems unscathed, not sure the word "aggressor" really sums up the mismatch.

Either way, clearly this is at an end. I hope they both get some counselling or intervention or she might end up accidently a lot worse off next time she starts attacking him.

If a bitch hit me i'd hit her back. I dont care if she's 4 foot nothing

me-skywalker · 02-12-2011 3:47pm

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

If a bitch hit me i'd hit her back. I dont care if she's 4 foot nothing

You'ld hit her back, not her face?

I kid, I kid, domestic violence is not acceptable at any level and these just seems like a whole case of misinterpretation, assumptions and hearsay.

02-12-2011 5:27pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

She hits him he pushes her away to (a) block her (b) defend himself (c) get her away from him. If he does what you purpose he would perfectly still, hands by his side and take it like a man, ya know, cause he's a linebacker.

No no. Because as well as hands, from what I see of him on tv he also has legs.

These seem to work perfectly well enough to enable him find his way around a field amongst multi million dollar players. You'd think they would also enable him get away from a volatile situation where the poor guy is being picked on by a smaller woman. And if he gets away, the "accidents" where that smaller person ends up with head injuries need never happen again, to the benefit of all concerned.

Hey, I'm a Packers fan, I like the guy as a player, I am not saying he's guilty of anything. But clearly the whole thing is...unpleasant.

tallaghtoutlaws · 02-12-2011 7:49pm

Hawk and Bishop out of Sundays game.

spank_inferno · 02-12-2011 11:47pm

Keno 92 wrote: »

So how's that 11-0 treating you lads...

The view from the ivory tower of perfection is terrific!

03-12-2011 6:59am

Is there any argument for saying that being beaten might not be such a bad thing in the scheme of things, get rid of that unbeaten season distraction, allow them focus solely on the real prize, remove any complacency (doubt there is any though). I'd take getting through the remaining season games with no injuries right now over reaching for some minor prize and having the whole thing end in a disaster ala the Pats.

spiralism · 05-12-2011 2:07am

Bit of a quid pro quo here lads, how about we beat the bears for ye if ye give the raiders a good thumping? would help us out with the division and all...sound:D

Pherekydes · 05-12-2011 9:11am

This was a big one. 12-0 on the season, 14 straight regular season wins, 18 including play-offs, 11 straight road wins, and Rodgers chalks up another 100+ passer rating.

Bring on the Raiders!

Oh yeah, the Division is won with 4 to spare!

me-skywalker · 05-12-2011 11:22am

w/o Rodgers, Jordy Nelson is my vote mvp!

Absolute tense finish last night my heart was pumping out my chest, I had a feeling they would go for the big plays and not wait for OT. I have confidence in Crosby and the WR to take us into the positions now, time after time in differente situations they are able to step up to the make and make it count. Disappointed with the dropped passes, Jennings and Crabtree giving me a heart attack.

Huge call on the illegal contact for us inside our own and looking at 4n out, I think we got a huge rub of the green!

spank_inferno · 05-12-2011 12:28pm

My thoughts:

I hate 5 hrs sleep on a Sunday night!

That illegal contact call was a big one, but I'll take it considering there was plenty of illegal contact / pass interference that was not flagged.

those catches by Driver & Nelson were out of this world.

It will be good to see a full strength line backer quartet next week
however the defense still needs to step up in general.

Again our offense linemen crumbled all too easily.
Rogers had far too little pocket to work in.
Our left tackle was especially poor.

Giants were pretty good considering their 6-6 record.
Their head coach needs to be a little less twitchy with those challenge flags.

</thoughts>

Arawn · 05-12-2011 2:03pm

Keno 92 wrote: »

So how's that 11-0 treating you lads...

Not too good, we didn't like it so we swapped it for a 12

me-skywalker · 05-12-2011 5:25pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

My thoughts:

I hate 5 hrs sleep on a Sunday night!

That illegal contact call was a big one, but I'll take it considering there was plenty of illegal contact / pass interference that was not flagged.

But you can't believe that 2 wrongs make a right? Maybe we wouldn't have needed that call so much if the first penalties were called, but hey I've just answered my own question

Our FG unit, by unit I mean Crosby, has been spectaluar 19/21 FG's 90% awesome!! With a 58yarder V Vikings and a last second 31yard in the red hot atmosphere and pressure cooker last night I have complete confidence in him!

Incidentally our ST's havent been great this year, our return yardage in both categories are averaging at 27.6yards, just been average enough to get but then again its better than taking the call every single time.

kmart6 · 05-12-2011 9:48pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

w/o Rodgers, Jordy Nelson is my vote mvp!

Not a hope....lots of people would be ahead of him...just look at Bress,Gronk,Brady,Miller etc....he's having a good season but not an MVP season!

cooker3 · 06-12-2011 2:10am

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any argument for saying that being beaten might not be such a bad thing in the scheme of things, get rid of that unbeaten season distraction, allow them focus solely on the real prize, remove any complacency (doubt there is any though). I'd take getting through the remaining season games with no injuries right now over reaching for some minor prize and having the whole thing end in a disaster ala the Pats.

I've heard this a few times and got to say it baffles me. So obviously winning a ring is the main goal but there are 45 Superbowl winners but a perfect season is a once in a generation possibly lifetime thing, I have no idea who won it all in the 81 season but I damn well know who win it in 72.

Maybe it's the sports buff in me. I just love seeing sporting history unfolding in front of me. I'm still pissed off about the Colts just giving it up 2 years ago. I may have been the only neutral who wanted the Patriots to beat the Giants in the Superbowl. I'd love to see an unbeaten season and for my team to have the chance to do it is nearly mindblowing. If they do go 19-0, they just aren't the best team of 2011, they are in greatest team ever category, have to be top 3 at least. Look how we look at Star and Lombardi, well in 40 years Rodgers and McCarty will hold equal weight if they can do this. They have to at least go for it imo.

06-12-2011 9:10am

cooker3 wrote: »

I've heard this a few times and got to say it baffles me. So obviously winning a ring is the main goal but there are 45 Superbowl winners but a perfect season is a once in a generation possibly lifetime thing, I have no idea who won it all in the 81 season but I damn well know who win it in 72.

I appreciate what you say, and there are 45 Superbowl winners...but not many winners in consecutive years, which must remain the big prize. My concern is that something like the Unbeaten Season almost becomes an end in itself and one fears that it just ratchets up the pressure and provides an unnecessary distraction when winning another Superbowl must remain the goal. You know who won it in 72, but bet you would not put that Dolphins team in the top 3 teams of all time, those spots would be occupied by teams that had imperfect seasons yet focussed on the prize. When I think of 07, my first thought is that the Giants won it, only after that would I think of the Pats and that whole unbeaten season hype and how it came crashing down. It is great to live through sporting heroics, but think the heroism here should be just winning the thing, not winning it by perfection.

me-skywalker · 06-12-2011 11:39am

kmart6 wrote: »

Not a hope....lots of people would be ahead of him...just look at Bress,Gronk,Brady,Miller etc....he's having a good season but not an MVP season!

I actually mean within GB not the whole league, that would be ridiculously myopic, my bad.

cooker3 wrote: »

Maybe it's the sports buff in me. I just love seeing sporting history unfolding in front of me. I'm still pissed off about the Colts just giving it up 2 years ago. I may have been the only neutral who wanted the Patriots to beat the Giants in the Superbowl. I'd love to see an unbeaten season and for my team to have the chance to do it is nearly mindblowing....

I was one of these neutrals also. I just love the idea that in my generation while I'm a fan that an amazing piece of history is being written and I'm fully aware of it and support it. I was gutted it didn't happen, and as yourself above to now see it happening again, and to MY team is just immense!

When your talkign to your grandchildren or when reading articles in the newspapers/magazines/tablets of the future you'll be able to say I remember that akin to Tiger Woods, Michael Schumacher, Mancherster United 1999, Barcelona, Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Patriots and the 10/11 Packers!

06-12-2011 9:53pm

And of course the Kerry football team, 78-86!

spiralism · 06-12-2011 10:20pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

I actually mean within GB not the whole league, that would be ridiculously myopic, my bad.

I was one of these neutrals also. I just love the idea that in my generation while I'm a fan that an amazing piece of history is being written and I'm fully aware of it and support it. I was gutted it didn't happen, and as yourself above to now see it happening again, and to MY team is just immense!

When your talkign to your grandchildren or when reading articles in the newspapers/magazines/tablets of the future you'll be able to say I remember that akin to Tiger Woods, Michael Schumacher, Mancherster United 1999, Barcelona, Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Patriots and the 10/11 Packers!

I was also one of those neutrals...i'm no pats fan but i wanted to see history and was raging the giants won, listening to people go on the following day who don't even watch the sport apart from the superbowl about being delighted for the pats frankly baffled me.

What's wrong with seeing history? I'd be fine with it if it wasn't the Raiders, Chargers or Chiefs... Colts intentionally blowing 16-0 infuriated me a little too. So come on Green Bay, hope you guys do the 19-0 seeing as that, as good as my broncos seem to be getting, a superbowl may just be a little out of reach just yet.

spank_inferno · 07-12-2011 12:31am

Brother & sister Pack fans!

detail on the new share issue has been released

I think you need a US address & credit card to register interest

07-12-2011 3:02pm

spiralism wrote: »

What's wrong with seeing history?

Nothing wrong with it.

Just concerned that the wheels come off as they focus on "making history" rather than "winning the Superbowl". It would be nice, but in the context of winning the Superbowl it really is only a little fluff on top as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see them make history by establishing the greatest dynasty the game has seen, and for me that is not done by unbeaten seasons but by winning the Superbowl multiple times. Of course they are not necessarily exclusive, just that one worries about the focus.

For the record, I was pleased Tipp stopped Kilkenny's "drive for 5", I didn't like seeing Sampras and then Federer break all those records on the tennis courts, I hope Woods does not surpass Nicklaus, I don't like the way 147s in snooker and 9 dart finishes have become almost common, the Man Utd "treble" did not interest me and so on and so forth.

UnitedIrishman · 07-12-2011 4:11pm

I don't think they'll get distracted by the 16-0 tag. Actually I'd be more willing to think that they'd feel it more so coming into the last couple of games of the regular season rather than the playoffs because once you reach the playoffs, the Superbowl and nothing else matters.

It was interesting watching Teddy Bruschi talk about it on ESPN on Sunday. He said the team captains and Belichick sat down every Friday and pleaded with him to not pull them from the end of games because they wanted to create history in 07-08. He reckoned they'd have smashed up the place if he suggested doing so!

Watching the Packers I think they're enjoying the challenge - it's almost like a boxing title holder defending it's belt. Even Rodgers said something to that degree last Sunday after the Giants game - "Those are the fun ones when they end up like that," Rodgers said. "We've had a number of games we won by a couple scores," Rodgers said. "You get the ball on the 20, under a minute, and we get it down there for a chip-shot field goal, it's very rewarding. It probably (ranks) right at the top."

07-12-2011 5:13pm

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

It was interesting watching Teddy Bruschi talk about it on ESPN on Sunday. He said the team captains and Belichick sat down every Friday and pleaded with him to not pull them from the end of games because they wanted to create history in 07-08. He reckoned they'd have smashed up the place if he suggested doing so!

Ah yes. You remind me of another reason I was rooting for the Giants.

That was the Pats team that was fond of running up the score...

Thankfully it's not something that has been levelled against the Packers.

me-skywalker · 07-12-2011 5:33pm

Deleted User wrote: »

For the record, I was pleased Tipp stopped Kilkenny's "drive for 5", I didn't like seeing Sampras and then Federer break all those records on the tennis courts, I hope Woods does not surpass Nicklaus, I don't like the way 147s in snooker and 9 dart finishes have become almost common, the Man Utd "treble" did not interest me and so on and so forth.

If the Packers went unbeaten thsi season and went half-way through next season unbeaten and considering how they ended last season on a streak, would you at some point next season be hoping and cheering for your own team to loose?

07-12-2011 5:59pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

hoping and cheering for your own team to loose?

:eek:

I don't think I ever said I was "hoping and cheering" for the Packers to lose?

I think I said "defeat might not be such a bad thing". And then I said that for me it's an unwanted distraction when the focus must be the Superbowl. We have seen one team screw it up in the most spectacular fashion. I'd hate to think there was any possibility of history repeating itself.

Green Bay Packers Thread

Comments